What Speech Should Be Acceptable to Restrict?

[loosecannon]

That connection is blatantly obvious. It is real and some of the activity of the "pro life" crowd is legitimate domestic terrorism.

Them's the facts.

So should we assassinate some of the "pro-life" ringleaders extrajudiciously? How bout the Christian clerics within the "pro-life" movement?

 

[Jackson]

I believe we've been blindsided by the left as what is the REAL problem here. It isn't restricting speech, it's targeting troubled youth and psychiatric problems they have. Holding parents responsible or schools when the student's behavior exhibit a danger to themselves or others.

Authorities should be called in as well as parents notified and mandatory evaluations and treatment done.

since a lot of mental health issues are hereditary are you suggesting that crazy parents should be criminally liable for what their crazy kids do as adults?

That sounds crazy to me.

Perhaps you didn't read my entire post. I said holding parents or schools responsible for alerting authorities. The schools should have an obligation to alert authorities that a dangerous student has been identified by psychologists. If the parents don't follow through with treatment, it can be called "neglect" and the courts can order treatment.

 

[Foxfyre]

That connection is blatantly obvious. It is real and some of the activity of the "pro life" crowd is legitimate domestic terrorism.

Them's the facts.

So should we assassinate some of the "pro-life" ringleaders extrajudiciously? How bout the Christian clerics within the "pro-life" movement?

Show me where it is obvious. Show me where anybody who has ever attacked an abortion clinic or threatened or harmed an abortion doctor a) listened to talk radio b) watched Fox News c) attended a Tea Party. And then show me where any conservative talk radio host, anybody on Fox News, or anybody at any Tea Party encouraged violence against any abortion clinic or doctor.

To draw such assumptions make you look dangerously bigoted, prejudiced, and irrationally hostile. Perhaps we should watch YOU and if any harm comes to any conservative accuse you immediately.

 

[whitehall]

How could anybody ask such a question? There are hundreds of legitimate restrictions on the 1st Amendment right to free speech. Any intelligent person can see through the question. The left wants permission to shut down talk radio. Who makes the determination whether speech is unacceptable? The administration? What happens if it is determined that a citizen engages in "unacceptable speech" either in private or on the internet? The federal police swoop down and we never see him again? Be careful what you wish for lefties. It could come back and bite you in your Stalinist asses.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe we've been blindsided by the left as what is the REAL problem here. It isn't restricting speech, it's targeting troubled youth and psychiatric problems they have. Holding parents responsible or schools when the student's behavior exhibit a danger to themselves or others.

Authorities should be called in as well as parents notified and mandatory evaluations and treatment done.

since a lot of mental health issues are hereditary are you suggesting that crazy parents should be criminally liable for what their crazy kids do as adults?

That sounds crazy to me.

Perhaps you didn't read my entire post. I said holding parents or schools responsible for alerting authorities. The schools should have an obligation to alert authorities that a dangerous student has been identified by psychologists. If the parents don't follow through with treatment, it can be called "neglect" and the courts can order treatment.

But what authorities do you alert? The schools certainly knew the Arizona shooter had been expelled but hundreds of students are expelled who do not commit mayhem. The shooter had been evaluated by professionals and it was determined that he had serious problems but there was no proof that he was a danger to himself or others. If we locked everybody we think acts anti socially or wierd, there would be an awful lot of folks locked up. There are a few even here on USMB that seem so unbalanced or irrational that I would not wish to meet them anywhere other than a well lighted, well populated area. Should I report those to the authorities?

It is a really difficult call when there is no clear evidence.

And even more difficult to rationally accuse conservative or liberal political criticism when there is zero evidence that it contributes to or produces violent acts of any kind.

 

[Foxfyre]

How could anybody ask such a question? There are hundreds of legitimate restrictions on the 1st Amendment right to free speech. Any intelligent person can see through the question. The left wants permission to shut down talk radio. Who makes the determination whether speech is unacceptable? The administration? What happens if it is determined that a citizen engages in "unacceptable speech" either in private or on the internet? The federal police swoop down and we never see him again? Be careful what you wish for lefties. It could come back and bite you in your Stalinist asses.

So how do you answer those who are convinced that all or many bad acts are the result of listening to conservative talk radio or watching Fox News or attending Tea Party rallies etc.? How do you convince them that such is part of our unalienable right to free speech and is not violating anybody's unalienable rights including inciting to riot or violence?

 

[Flopper]

Free speech should only be curtailed where it truly endangers others such as screaming fire in a crowded auditorium. Suggesting violence as answer to a problem is no reason to limit free speech.

Our history is filled with curtailment of first amendment rights, all supposedly necessary such as the communist witch hunts of the 50's or wikileaks of today.

 

[loosecannon]

I believe we've been blindsided by the left as what is the REAL problem here. It isn't restricting speech, it's targeting troubled youth and psychiatric problems they have. Holding parents responsible or schools when the student's behavior exhibit a danger to themselves or others.

Authorities should be called in as well as parents notified and mandatory evaluations and treatment done.

since a lot of mental health issues are hereditary are you suggesting that crazy parents should be criminally liable for what their crazy kids do as adults?

That sounds crazy to me.

Perhaps you didn't read my entire post. I said holding parents or schools responsible for alerting authorities. The schools should have an obligation to alert authorities that a dangerous student has been identified by psychologists. If the parents don't follow through with treatment, it can be called "neglect" and the courts can order treatment.

OK.

Some librul rookie teacher says that your kid is nutz and likely a danger to himself or society and he needs to be medicated! If you don't submit your brat for treatment you can be imprisoned.

That's gonna go over real good in Redneckville, the government is taking your freedoms, USA

 

[loosecannon]

That connection is blatantly obvious. It is real and some of the activity of the "pro life" crowd is legitimate domestic terrorism.

Them's the facts.

So should we assassinate some of the "pro-life" ringleaders extrajudiciously? How bout the Christian clerics within the "pro-life" movement?

Show me where it is obvious. Show me where anybody who has ever attacked an abortion clinic or threatened or harmed an abortion doctor a) listened to talk radio b) watched Fox News c) attended a Tea Party. And then show me where any conservative talk radio host, anybody on Fox News, or anybody at any Tea Party encouraged violence against any abortion clinic or doctor.

To draw such assumptions make you look dangerously bigoted, prejudiced, and irrationally hostile. Perhaps we should watch YOU and if any harm comes to any conservative accuse you immediately.

yeah, I know it isn't obvious to you. But to the rest of the world the abortion clinic vigilantes are domestic terrorists and direct products of fundiefascist jijadist clerics.

 

[daveman]

Obviously, Photoshop is inciting graphic artists to commit murder.

 

[xotoxi]

I would like to see only Glenn Beck restricted.

He's so friggin melodramatic that...actually, he's kind of funny.

I change my mind...Glenn Beck can remain.

 

[mdn2000]

restrict liberal speech, liberal speech is an attack on my private property through tax.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to see only Glenn Beck restricted.

He's so friggin melodramatic that...actually, he's kind of funny.

I change my mind...Glenn Beck can remain.

Well if you decide again that he should be restricted I can show you how to change the station on your radio or where the channel changer is on your TV remote.

The thing is Beck is ultra non partisan. Republicans and Democrats alike are in his crosshairs for criticism and he is no respector of party affiliation and he pulls no punches in telling it like he thinks it is. Anybody who spends any time on his quite sophisticated teachings can't help but learn something or else will know where to go to check it all out. He got my attention when he took on Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, as the one who pushed us onto the slippery slope of ever increasing socialism and worse. That sent me back to the history books and voila, he was right.

But despite 15 hours of radio broadcasts each week and five hours of highly rated television shows each week, not a single act of violence can be traced to Beck's show. And I dare say nobody will be able to find a single phrase, clause, word, or image used in any of his programming that encourages or condones violence of any kind toward anybody.

Beck is so hated because he tells the truth about things our fearless leaders really REALLY don't want known or targeted for attention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Threats of violence are already illegal

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

 

[Foxfyre]

Threats of violence are already illegal

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

But where does it stop? If members of Congress or their constituents can't be targeted for votes, what about their opponents who haven't yet been elected to Congress? Campaign managers? Members of the press following campaigns? Families of persons involved in campaigns. Etc. etc. etc.

And who decides if a graphic looks too much like crosshairs or a target?

To me it is all absolutely absurd.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

But where does it stop? If members of Congress or their constituents can't be targeted for votes, what about their opponents who haven't yet been elected to Congress? Campaign managers? Members of the press following campaigns? Families of persons involved in campaigns. Etc. etc. etc.

And who decides if a graphic looks too much like crosshairs or a target?

To me it is all absolutely absurd.

Listener, viewers, and voters are the only ones that can end the violent rhetoric. Changing the station, or withholding campaign contributions and votes will do the deed. However, I believe most people enjoy the rhetoric. It's an outlet for their frustrations but when some nut acts on the rhetoric and guns down a lot of innocent people, they demand government take action.

 

[john_199078]

I don't think there should be any censorship as it would be one step closer to stripping away freedom of speech. Canada has done this to some degree and it is very one sided. One group of people can say something about another group but not the other way. Also seeing someones views let you know what kind of person they are. I did not give a thought to the cross hair map until the shooting (even though i know it had nothing to do with them). As I'm sure many other people didn't either. However obvious threats should always be dealt with.

 

[Father Time]

Slander, libel, threats, harassment, inciting immediate violence (and I mean telling people to assault/murder people and actually mean it), false advertising, perjury ... can't think of any others at the moment, but calling the left or the right evil should definitely stay protected.

 

[Father Time]

Anyone who advocates supression of speech should be forced to wear a ball gag for a month.

Anyone who advocates supression of the writtenword should have their fingers super glued together.

Well it doesn't get more ironic than this.

Free speech also includes the ability to say that free speech sucks and should be done away.

However I think anyone who really advocates such things should be looked down on or something.

 

[mudwhistle]

Threats of violence are already illegal

Yes, but the problem is ability to legally interpret ANY innocent metaphor or phrase or imagery as threatening. You don't see a problem with that?

We have workable laws against making threats against the President; we could simply expand those to include Congress members.

From what I understand, this guy didn't threaten her. He shot her. There already are laws that cover that.